ref neutics post above:
Quote:
As a military science instructor at A&M, 1/2 of the first and second year students had no desire to be there, and brought the class as a whole down. These were the Aggie Band types and others who had no real desire to serve, but rather wore the uniform to be part of the fraternity and were required to attend military science classes for 2 years.
This comment tells me that he was at A&M during the days of compulsory Corps attendance - prior to 1965 - a long time ago - and a lot of changes have occurred since the days of mandatory attendance (minus vets, disabled, upper class transfers, etc)..
Nowadays, it is completely volunteer - and thus ALL of the guys and gals in the Corps are motivated. Whether or not they intend to make the military a full time career is another subject, but may or may not be the reason they are in the Corps.
While I can be considered an "old", I too was on the Det 805 staff from 1970-73 and can attest to the complete change of attitude from the days of compulsory attendance as a cadet myself vs voluntary.
The advantage A&M has over the academies is NOT having to serve after completion of 4 years in the Corps assuming a scholarship and contract were not signed but still get the benefit of the leadership training - and certainly not least - the environment of a major coed university with all sorts of diversity and choices of academic major. And often as not, if "the needs of the military" are such that they do not require even scholarship and contract cadets to receive their commission and the end of their 4 years of Military Science classes, they too are looking for employment other than the military.
There is a lot of argument over whether or not the current "New Army" is better qualified academically than "Old Army" because of the top 10% rule and higher average SAT scores, etc...
In addition, now that the Corps is volunteer, they can set "entrance requirements" and standards higher nowadays as well since it is not a requirement to be in the Corps minimum 2 years as it was prior to 1965.
In addition, the emphasis on better grades, General Moore, etc., seems to me to be much higher now than in the past.
But, the challenges the Corps presents from a mental point of view to withstand seniority, standards of cleanliness, excellence as a "whole man" concept, leadership training, etc., hasn't changed a bit...
To me it's like asking which is the toughest Board for licensure... Medical Doctor, Lawyer, Architect, Engineer, CPA, etc., which is nonsense because the mental anguish to achieve Board Certification as a professional are tough and rigorous for a reason and to say that one is tougher than the other is hard to quantify - because the intern is doing what he wants as a career objective - and it's not easy... The same is true of becoming an Officer in the United States Military.
Certainly, there are guarantees if one is selected to a military Service Academy - including guaranteed employment, etc. But the fact is the academic choices are limited when compared to a major university like A&M. There is no question that the selection requirements to get into a service academy are very, very rigorous and similar to Ivy League levels. The selection rate is very, very competitive - and, often to receive not only a commission upon graduation (obligated payback) but to get their entire education paid in full.
There are pros and cons either way. But, having had a commission and career in the USAF, and after retirement from the military having a complete second and even third professional career I can unequivocally say the A&M as a University and that graduates of A&M are universally accepted and appreciated as leaders in industry as well as the military worldwide. To make that claim as exclusive to an academy grad is just pride.
AAAAAAAAAAg - Air Force Aggie Architect and Hospital Administrator fm Amarillo, Altus, Austin, Arabia, Arkansas, Africa, Seoul, Bahrain, Amman, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Saudi, DFW-Fairview, Ramstein, San Antonio, Pentagon, OKC, JCAHO/JCR - '65, '69, '73 - A&M Letterman (ret).
Winston Churchill: “If you’re not a socialist in your twenties, you have no heart. But if you’re not a capitalist in your thirties, you have no mind.”
